- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- technology@lemmy.world
It has now emerged that after being informed that Safari was likely to fall under the DMA’s regulations, Apple filed formal a response to the European Union claiming that Safari is, in fact, “three distinct web browsers.” The company’s claim is based on the argument that Safari for iOS, iPadOS, and macOS are entirely different and serve different purposes.
On example cited by Apple is Safari’s sidebar feature on iPadOS and macOS, allowing users to see opened tabs, tab groups, bookmarks, and browsing history. Since this feature is unavailable in the version of Safari for iOS, Apple claimed that it is a distinctly different browser. The company added that each version of Safari serves different purposes for users depending on the device upon which it is accessed.
The European Commission went on to point out that Safari’s functionality and underlying technologies are near-identical across platforms. The Commission even highlights Apple’s own marketing materials for its Continuity feature, which appear to contradict the company’s claims, touting the tag line “Same Safari. Different device.” As a result, the Commission rejected Apple’s claim and insists that “Safari qualifies as a single web browser, irrespective of the device through which that service is accessed.”
This might have big implications for Google. If underlying technology is what determines if a browser is separate and distinct from an other one. Then all chromium browsers could be considered one browser.
Especially with chromium powering not just Chrome but edge, brave, Vivaldi, opera, Samsung internet browser etc. This makes it the default on four major operating systems, and the majority of the global market. It also makes up the majority of alternative browsers.
This is a real problem. Google have defacto control over the internet and the standards thar define how people access it. This is a big issue for Safari right now, because chromium is based on safaris web kit. However, Google forked web kit and it is going to continue to diverge. We will see less sites work on safari in the future, similar to how we see less sites work in Firefox.
This is really bad, because it forces users to use a Chromium based browser. People that prefer safari or Firefox are often compelled to install chrome because they need a website to work correctly. Despite chrome being clunkier, less battery efficient and more spyware.
I think the EU should force all significant operating systems sold to commercial users to provide an option for web browsers. This should include windows, iOS/MacOs, android, pre-installed (Linux), android and possibly chromeOS.
How the internet is accessed and the standards it adheres to are very important. It should be a truly open consortium defining these standards.
We are heading towards the same issue we had with internet explorer. This time the issue will be two major browsers rather than one (chrome and Safari). This will also be hidden by the illusion of choice between all the chromium variants. Firefox is great, but it’s not got the default power like it’s competitors.
Considering they’re all run by different companies, I’d disagree with you there.
They all use the same open-source codebase, but they all have their own proprietary features added on top by different companies.
To be clear, I do agree that Google is basically controlling the market through their open-source code, but I disagree that they can all be called a single web browser.
I think this is why Safari is one browser. In my eyes, Chromium-based browsers are distinct enough. Yet if Safari’s difference is mere sidebar… you don’t claim those three to be distinct browsers.
All chromium browsers are simply settings and UI tweeks. Some have additional features, but how they operate and how they render websites is the same.
If they were separate and distinct, they would fork chromium. Developing the core of the web browser separately.
They don’t. The take the new chromium build and merge it with their browser software. If safari used different UI design, logos and removed the shared history and settings features from each platform. It would have the same practical distinctions as chromium variants.
You also call them Chromium browsers, btw. They are different browsers in the usual sense of the word.
Safari has been always Safari regardless of the variant, in comparison.
Although G Chrome and Edge are very close to Chromium, Chromium is the base of such a diverse set of software.
You don’t call an Electron app a Chromium, do you? Qt also offers Chromium as a widget, where you can basically do whatever you want. This is why just using Chromium as the base doesn’t qualify as the same browser for me. That’s like mistaking the engine as the browser.
Chrome is already subject to the same regulation.
It’s interesting they have declared chrome a gatekeeper, but not Samsung internet browser. They are also investigating edge.
I didn’t read this novel but that’s a false equivalency for sure
He’s articulating the problem of a single entity controlling web standards. It is a huge problem and both apple and Google are trying to kill competition in different ways, but the goal is equivalent.
No it isn’t, Google is already trying to abuse their near monopoly with Chromium